And I do not mean just for Gitmo. I mean for AMERICANS. Yes, you read that right, Obama is going to sign into law INDEFINITE DETENTION for AMERICAN CITIZENS. Moreover, this applies not just to US Citizens abroad, but right here at home. Constitution, Schmonstitution, who needs that crappy old piece of paper? Apparently not Obama.

This is historic, and if anyone thinks for a second it isn’t, then they are simply fooling themselves. All of those people who screamed about indefinite detention of enemy combatants down at Gitmo, I sure as hell hope you are going to be screaming now. This is not just for those possible terrorists, this is for you, and me.

Now, I am no attorney, or Constitutional scholar, but I can read. The US Constitution, Amendment 6 says this: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
What is not clear about this?

I might add, I said from the very beginning that this alleged “Constitutional Scholar” probably became one so he could better dismantle the law. Sure is looking like it with this.

[snip] (Y)esterday announced that he would instead sign it into law (this is the same individual, of course, who unequivocally vowed when seeking the Democratic nomination to support a filibuster of “any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecom[s],” only to turn around – once he had the nomination secure — and not only vote against such a filibuster, but to vote in favor of the underlying bill itself, so this is perfectly consistent with his past conduct). As a result, the final version of the Levin/McCain bill will be enshrined as law this week as part of the the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). I wrote aboutthe primary provisions and implications of this bill last week, and won’t repeat those points here.

The ACLU said last night that the bill contains “harmful provisions that some legislators have said could authorize the U.S. military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world” and added: “if President Obama signs this bill, it will damage his legacy.” Human Rights Watch said that Obama’s decision “does enormous damage to the rule of law both in the US and abroad” and that “President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.”

Both groups pointed out that this is the first time indefinite detention has been enshrined in law since the McCarthy era of the 1950s, when — as the ACLU put it — “President Truman had the courage to veto” the Internal Security Act of 1950 on the ground that it “would make a mockery of our Bill of Rights” and then watched Congress override the veto. That Act authorized the imprisonment of Communists and other “subversives” without the necessity of full trials or due process (many of the most egregious provisions of that bill were repealed by the 1971 Non-Detention Act, and are now being rejuvenated by these War on Terror policies of indefinite detention). President Obama, needless to say, is not Harry Truman. He’s not even the Candidate Obama of 2008 who repeatedly insisted that due process and security were not mutually exclusive and who condemned indefinite detention as “black hole” injustice.

A return to McCarthyism under the Obama Administration is what we now have. Wow, great. That is just jake. For all of those people who did not believe us when we said Obama was Bush III, something about which I wrote extensively, who ridiculed, attacked, and demeaned, not only were we right, and bite me, but NOW look what has happened to our nation.

As I said, there is so much more to this article, I cannot begin to do it justice here, read it. But I do want to make sure you see this:

[snip] I need to say that again: long before, and fully independent of, anything Congress did, President Obama made clear that he was going to preserve the indefinite detention system at Guantanamo even once he closed the camp. (Emphasis mine.)That’s what makes the apologias over Obama and GITMO so misleading: the controversy over Guantanamo was not that about its locale — that it was based in the Caribbean Sea — so that simply closing it and then re-locating it to a different venue would address the problem. The controversy over Guantanamo was that it was a prison camp where people were put in cages indefinitely, for decades or life, without being charged with any crime. And that policy is one that President Obama whole-heartedly embraced from the start. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

If you prefer, you can watch Mr. Greenwald discuss this issue with Cenk Ungar here:

This is historic, this is horrible, this is McCarthyism, this is an affront to the US Constitution, this is abhorrent in every way, shape, and form.

I have just one question for those who voted for Obama: How do you like him NOW??

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MU6BQJXSLBGYDZX3NABQFVVKK4 blondman

This is the plight of America, the people who elected a charlatan when they allowed the MSM to make that decision for them are now blaming a president whose been gone 3 years now! Wake up and take your damn medicine you voted Obama in now you’re suffering for it! Stop blaming Bush, who had a Democrat dominated Congress the last 2 years of his final term and target the true cause of the problem! THE DEMOCRATS AND OBAMA! Now, vote to clean out the Senate and elect anyone with a heartbeat but Obama and just maybe we won’t have a civil war!

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MU6BQJXSLBGYDZX3NABQFVVKK4 blondman

Bush III ob steroids, typical leftie who is so distraught over the fact that his messiah, Obama disappointed all that he just has to keep trashing Bush, What BS! Bush gave us a flourishing economy until Democrat deregulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the toxic derivatives that Wall Street rammed up our butts and the Partiot Act though really screwed up pails in comparison to the implications of NDAA S. 1867 wake up and stop blaming Bush for the treason of Obama, please!

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MU6BQJXSLBGYDZX3NABQFVVKK4 blondman

I think its interesting to note that Obama was willing to pass the initial incarnation of the S.1867 bill which was S.1253 in which there was no distinction between American citizens or terrorists operatives. It was after it was redrafted as S.1867 that Obama threatened to veto the bill! If that doesn’t illustrate for you how badly this radical leftist charlatan of a president wants to eviscerate the opposing political view I don’t know what will!

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MU6BQJXSLBGYDZX3NABQFVVKK4 blondman

Once again another slanted version of the truth! It was not under Bush but under Obama we find the overreach of NDAA S. 1867 in unleashing the US army into the zone interior of the US when Bush had every opportunity to do so, and didn’t. Why? Because Obama wants to be able to silence and arrest any political opposition civilian or not with vague and ambiguous legislation that can be interpreted as such for political opportunists like the Democrats who want to expunge opposition anyway possible and they’ll pass laws to do it!

Anonymous

The NDAA Explained: Part Two in a Two-Part Series of Columns on the National Defense Authorization Act

Question, what about the Occupy movement did any of you not understand? It was a false flag operation orchestrated by the Democrats and collectivists who hate freedom in this country and will undermine it with the entitlement mentality at every turn in order to convert our system of free enterprise with collectivism with their moronic accusations designed to immerse us in class warfare. I listened to these idiots spewing their Marxist Alinsky handbook diatribe in their very own disoriented fashion. Amazingly the media never admonished them for shitting on cop cars, having sex in public, theft, rape, oh the very blossoming of a new generation of liberators who will save the republic! God help us!

Doc Vega

Saying Obama is Bush II on steroids is typical liberal rhetoric for those of you lefties who are disgruntled over Obama not living up to the hype you were stupid enough to swallow as the US media elected Barack Obama before the voting booths ever opened. At least under Bush we had economic growth, a definite foreign policy, and strong military support. Under Obama all of those precepts were quickly compromised. Yes, let’s keep kicking the dead horse so all you former Obots can now attack your hatred of Bush as the cause of all of Obama’s incredible ineptitude and inexperience not to mention that his wealthy handlers like George Soros have tasked him with the job of destroying the US economically, militarily, spiritually, morally, and socially. Jeez 3 years and your messiah has damn near done it!

Anonymous

“At least under Bush we had economic growth, a definite foreign policy, and strong military support.”

Economic growth? Yeah its called the national debt… Definite foreign policy? Oh yeah and that killed some 4000 Men and Women for absolutely nothing…. and a strong military support…. Yeah tell that to the many vets who have to deal with the VA System….

Gosh Doc… you been abusing your scripts again?

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MU6BQJXSLBGYDZX3NABQFVVKK4 blondman

This is a typical ignorant and uninformed response of the left, more national debt under Bush! For 2 of the last 4 years of Bush’s 2nd term the Democrats dominated the House and Senate with Pelosi and Reid passing as many spending bills as they could muster! You conveniently and deceptively deny that succinct fact like most lefties who bash conservatives without a reality based argument! I don’t agree with everything Bush did, but we were a hell of a lot better off than with Obama at with a projected 13 trillion in national debt which just about exceeds our GDP. Yep, this is the very fruit of Democrat radical leftist fiscal management and you liars will continue to conveniently hide and ignore the truth.

Guest

This isn’t just for now – it is forever unless repealed. And, it is open to the interpretation of the office holder in regards to anything for any reason no matter how inane it may be.

Anonymous

Who cares what those people think now. What is important now, is that President Obama should be impeached for violating the terms of the US Constitutiion. We have had enough, and this is the last straw.
He has to go.

Anonymous

Ahhhh now I am starting to get the picture….. Its buttheads like Mitch McMcConnell!

“This case garnered politicial attention earlier this year when some
members of Congress, led by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), demanded that
Alwan be sent to Guantanamo Bay or transfered to military custody.
McConnell stated that Kentucky would be a terrorist target because of
the Justice Department’s bringing this case in federal court.”

On June 14, 2011, McConnell said in a statement, “Sending them to Gitmo
is the only way we can be certain there won’t be retaliatory attacks in
Kentucky. Sending them to Gitmo is the only way we can prevent
Kentuckians from having to cover the cost and having to deal with the
disturbances and disruptions that would come with a civilian trial. And
sending them to Gitmo is the best way to ensure that they get what they
deserve.”

How about we send McConnell to GITMO….

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MU6BQJXSLBGYDZX3NABQFVVKK4 blondman

Buttheads like Mitch McConnel have been defeated in their attempts to introduce a balanced budget amendment, to force Obama to exhibit any kind of budget at all in more than 800 days in term, and Obama shows no sign of slowing down in spending as we once again approach another debt ceiling crisis for the anointed one to fear monger over. Why wouldn’t people in Kentucky want a terrorist to be prosecuted as a war criminal by the military rather than absorbing state funds to try this asshole as a normal domestic law breaker. We should not extend the rights of citizens of the US to foreign combatants dedicated to the destruction of America. What is so hard for you to understand? This is the typical brainless response of the left in this country, opinionated, radical, irrational, and uninformed. Slanted and biased opinions don’t give us a reality based answer.

Anonymous

As I continue my bitching and moaning on NDAA… As I stated, the Bill of Rights not only protects US Citiznes but on a limited basis all persons held and charged on US Soil….

“Equally problematic, the law puts Congress’s stamp on a dubious—and
untested—interpretation of military detention authority. The law
provides that indefinite detention without charge may be imposed on
anyone who has provided “substantial support” to groups that are
“associated forces” of al-Qaeda; but it leaves undefined what
constitutes “substantial support” and which groups might qualify as
“associated forces.” Thus far, the lower federal courts have upheld
detention of al-Qaeda or Taliban members, but not mere supporters, much
less supporters of associated forces. And there is much dispute about
whether the laws of war permit detention in those circumstances. Now
Congress has essentially predetermined that question. Unless this and
future administrations construe these provisions as limited by the laws
of war, they risk authorizing detention that the laws of war would not.”

Besides the contradictory language in the legislation. Another issue here.. Jose Padilla… Lets be very clear here…

Padilla was eventually tried by what? Oh yeah! Our Civil System! Why civil and not military? Why was Padilla release after spending three years in the brig to the civilian court system? Because it was established by the Courts the Uncle W did “NOT” have CONGRESSIONAL approval to have the military detain an American citizen for acts away from a combat zone as an enemy combatant.

Well Congress just closed that loop hole with NDAA! Now remember Padilla was convicted of “conspiracy to commit terrorism” Not the WMD , dirty bomb garbage. So now the NDAA goes a little further. Under the NDAA the phrase “substantial support” which is not just vaguely defined, but, is well short of the legal definition of conspiracy.

Will the Nobel committee please admit its mistake and take away his “preemptive” Nobel Peace Prize now?

Anonymous

Uh, yeah – I’d like to know the answer to that, too…

Propertius

Frankly, this is exactly what I expected from Obama. What really depresses me is *McCain*. I expected better from him.

Anonymous

*McCain*?????

Your kidding right? Expect what? The man is almost feeble…

Anonymous

Well, so much for Obama being a “Constitutional scholar”. He should read it before he claims to be an expert on it. I think it is time we heed the words of one of the contributors to the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson. He said, “The tree of liberty needs to be refreshed with the blood of tyrants.” Hopefully, it will be figurative blood, political blood. But if necessary, it can be real blood. Theirs, not ours.

http://twitter.com/Juliezzz Juliezzz

I think he read it. And, I think he read it in order to figure ways around it or ways to subvert it.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MU6BQJXSLBGYDZX3NABQFVVKK4 blondman

Obama the Constitutional scholar? What a joke! With all his locked down records at Columbia and Harvard and literally no one remembering him even after 400 people were interviewed the supposed contemporaries of his academic era? This man is a Manchurian candidate, bred, financed, and inserted with slick spook intelligence efficiency into our political system to ride America down into destruction and in 3 years he’s damn well done it!

yttik

Occupy Seattle has been struggling to find some meaning in their movement and I’ve been following the discussion. There is no doubt that the Seattle group is pro-Dem and pro-Obama which is creating quite a conflict. People are saying things like,”.. you want the people
responsible for the economic meltdown of the country, and wide spread
corruption, to now suddenly act responsibly?” And “..they don’t even care about your civil rights, why would they care about your demands?”It’s a bizarre kind of cognitive dissonance. We have a Dem president, a Dem congress, supporting indefinite detention and even the execution of two US citizens without due process, and yet we must avoid protesting any Dems, including the president, because Dems are the party of civil rights. We also have to maintain our support of Obama and the Dems while simultaneously maintaining that we are non political and leaderless.Watching some of these people trying to twist themselves into pretzels, rationalizing away the wall street president and his disregard for civil rights, is both fascinating and scary.

Anonymous

Cognitive dissonance indeed. Well said, yttik.

The hypocrisy is truly staggering, isn’t it? That is one of the things abt Greenwald that I appreciate. He is holding Obama’s feet to the fire no matter what. If only more people were willing to do that…

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MU6BQJXSLBGYDZX3NABQFVVKK4 blondman

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the Occupy movement is the equivalent of a false flag operation designed to distract the public from the incredible failures of the Democrat policy failure. These people have no coherent message, half of them are drugged, homeless people who were paid to show up like the Unions who paid people to show up in Milwaukee. Who do you think bankrolled the movement with half a million dollars? The other half are a bunch of brats who want the government to pay for their student loans. Why has the media and the Democrat leadership ignored the excesses of the movement, the degenerate behavior? yet, they trashed the Tea Party and totally fabricated lies about financially responsible Americans who contribute to this society. If you can’t see that this is a concerted take over of our country by the left, I strongly suggest you take your blinders off and look around because your country is on fire people!

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MU6BQJXSLBGYDZX3NABQFVVKK4 blondman

Well said except for the part about a Democrat controlled Congress that in Republican hands, its the Democrta controlled Senate that has put a stop to every sound economic proposal that has been voted on by Congress as Obama is using Harry Ried’s corrupt ass to table any meaningful bills that could remedy our ailing economy. These Marxist bastards are committed to destroying the country!

Anonymous

as always.Excellent article Amy!!!

candymarl

I too was ripped to shreds when I tried to warn people that Obama was Bush III on steroids.

I wish I could say this surprises me.

Thank you for this article Rev Amy.

AC

I must remind everyone that the Constitutional protections applies to “persons” when we as citizens insist it applies only to us (only our class) it is the beginning of the erosion. We must be ever vigilant.

Anonymous

Yes, “ever vigilant”should be our motto, especially when it comes to our rights and liberties.

Anonymous

This is so disgusting I can barely type. What is going on in this country?

I agree with Cenk Ungar, my head hurts. I usually find him despicable. In fact mostly I find him a bloviating asshat.

But unlike lying POS obots, I can give credit where credit is due. He’s right when he’s right. Now I need to go wash my brain out with soap and water.

Anonymous

And let me add that I haven’t a doubt that once Cenk finishes with his usual histrionics he will find a way, in spite of the fact that the Dems control the Senate and the White House, to blame this on the GOP. Note how often he mentioned Bush. News for Cenk, Bush isn’t in office and longer and it’s the Democrat that is not only doing the same, he’s enlarging the presidential powers that Dems decried when they belonged to a Republican.

Thus I have absolute faith in Cenk hypocrisy and bias.

Anonymous

Sadly, I am afraid you are right. How often have we seen that since Obama took office? Those who have the temerity to speak out abt one of Obama’s ploys quickly walks it back. We have seen it time and again from these folks.

And yes, this is not abt Bush – BUSH does not plan on signing this, OBAMA does. I am so tired of Obama and the Dems constantly claiming this not their fault – for the first two years, they had SOLE control in DC, and still have 2/2, hell to the yes, it IS their fault, and they bear responsibility for everything that is happening.

As do any and all Reps who go along with this madness.

Anonymous

This should be followed closely/bumped up for awhile. I’ve passed this on to some of my American friends who had no idea – thought i was joking. Real shocker. Looking at the alleged rigged elections in Russia, what a great way to remove meddlesome “protesters” after the fact?
Great article and thnx for that link.

Anonymous

Thank you so much. I admit, I was stunned when I saw this article was from Glenn Greenwald. Good for him for keeping up on this issue so much. I applaud his tenacity, and courage.

Because who knows what will determine someone speaking truth to power, and someone being deserving of indefinite detention.
Seems to me it is a rather slippery slope, you know?

Again, Greenwald’s emphasis on Obama was that he has ALWAYS supported this tactic – always. But Obama’s supporters didn’t want to hear those pesky little facts…

Anonymous

Excellent article Amy!!!

So glad both you and Larry have written on this. And I agree with BeyondWords – they should be bumped up to keep this issue front and center. There should be yelling from the roof tops on this – but no accident every one is busy getting ready for the holidays.

Re your surprise at this article from Greenwald – he is a constitutional scholar and lawyer and rabid (in a good way) defender of civil rights. He wrote excellent articles against Bush administration uses and abuses – and later Obama. I read him regularly.
In two areas he’s blown it it big time. Giving Obama a pass early on for appointing Geithner, Summers, et al. – claiming he would defer to other more knowledgeable opinions in this area. And he wanted the current outcome of Citizens United that allowed unlimited funding of elections because it helps unions and “groups” pool money.

Anonymous

Thanks so much, Linda. I appreciate that.

You are so right abt the timing of this, too. I suppose none of us should be surprised by it.

The earlier response to Obama is why I was surprised Greenwald was hammering him on this, but I do give him credit where due. His vigilance on this critical, critical issue is essential. Without someone like him, this surely would have flown under the radar.

Anonymous

DING! DING! DING!

Jimticehurst007

Preach It and Teach it Girl..There is Power in TRUTH,,,,

Anonymous

Go figure that John Yu got a gig at Berkley.

Anonymous

Held out hope???????????????? Ignorant bastards. Change????

Anonymous

OK… For just a second imagine that I have become an enemy of the state, which by definition, is ANYONE, who as Abraham Lincoln stated may find it nessasary for:

“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existinggovernment, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable – a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.

I can not help but think Osama Bin ladan knew that “fear itself” would do what he knew he alone could not.
Rev. Amy,ret. (LOL) I am not a lawyer either but I do not understand why on it’s face the law violates the Constitution
1) Why the SCOTUS doesn’t kill it or at least grant an injunction prima facia
2) Does the Constitution have standing all on it’s own?
3) If not number 2 then how does one get standing? Normally, one has to show immediate harm for standing to be reached.
4) If I am an enemy of the state,….. (and what upright citizen isn’t?)
and I am incarrcerated, never to be heard from again, how is anyone to know of my constitutional rights being violated?
5) Did not the ruling by the SCOTUS in Hamdi v Rumsfield cite the 2001 AUMF as the basis for it’s opinion?http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/commentary/hamvrum
6) Does not this “law” declare American soil as a war zone?
7) ““a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens.”
8) Little did I know what Obama meant went he called Senator Clintons intent to change the AUMF as “quaint”.
9) We know that BO isn’t going to defend the Constitution in any shape size or form as well as Bush, “the Unitarian president” is bullshit.
10) It drives me nuts that for 10 years now, Larry Johnson and others have caught all manner of crap, for saying that in relative term “terrorism” is not at the top of the threat list. In absolute terms the Bill of Rights is dead.

Anonymous

Outstanding questions, Teak! And you have hit the critical issues of why this is SO dangerous to our nation, and to our citizens. What recourse will we have? Who is chosen, and how? Where is the Supreme Court? Where is Congress? Why are they not impeaching Obama for this incredible breach of faith and allegiance to the Constitution??

So many issues, and yes, the Bill of Rights is dying before our very eyes…

Anonymous

Popsmoke has some great additions, too. (thanks)

The Patriot Act and the AUMF appear to be the point that much of this attack on the Constitution and common sense as well.
Senator Levin said on the senate floor that Obama wanted power not the liberty of US persons.
Sadly, as much as I enjoy a good tinfoil story, this is bound to fuel a seperatist movement, which will be viewed as a threat to the state. The parinoia of the Glen Becks of the world will only get worse.

BO thinks he deserves to have face on Mt Rushmore, but he is sooooooo politically tone deaf that if he had vetoed it, he would have garned a huge chunk of indie votes. Even if only the veto amounted to a symbolic jesture..but nope can’t go there.

Anonymous

Agreed, Teak – Popsmoke had not commented yet when I responded to you. Very thoughtful responses n both of y’all’s part, and food for thought. Thank you!

Anonymous

No Rev. Thank you. I am still PISSED and if this doesn’t take the spineles cowards cake, then no gun law is gonna stop what’s coming.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MU6BQJXSLBGYDZX3NABQFVVKK4 blondman

Why take a shot at Glen Beck? What does Glen Beck have to do with the Obama decision to pass NDAA S.1867? You lefties are always more than happy to take a swipe at any Christian or conservative whether its the responsibility of your messiah, Obama or not! You people could use brain surgery please defer to one of Obama’s czars for the funding by which to do so!

2. In the legislation what exactly does “support” and “associated forces” mean?

3. What makes anyone think that this new law will not be misused as the Patriot Act as been?

4. What are the legal conflicts of the Feinstein amendment, (“Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or
authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful
resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are
captured or arrested in the United States.”) which passed 99-1, with the NDAA legislation and current legal process? Note: Jose Padilla, Hamdi vs. Rumsfield and the NDAA 2012 legislative phrases “covered persons” and “Belligerent act”.

Also remember the Bill of Rights does not just protect US Citizens. There are limited rights for all peoples. This is what makes the Bill of Rights the greatest document of all. Any pundit who says that there is no constitutional infringement better go back to school!

5. What oversights in the legislation are detailed to ensure that abuse is curtailed?

Obama and congress are responsible for the demise of our civil liberties. To say that’s just Obama is incorrect. We should throw out of office Obama and the current congress. They need to spend more time with their families.

Anonymous

for sure

Anonymous

I remember the outrage that I felt when the Patriot Act was put into place. i thought then that the country should have risen up to stop it. Instead, everyone slowly got used to not having as many liberties as the Constitution had provided–because they had not been affected.

This is absolutely horrible. You wrote this: “A return to McCarthyism under the Obama Administration is what we now have.” But my biggest fear is that it is a negative image of McCarthyism. In my mind the Obama administration may, in fact, conduct witch hunts against libertarians and people who believe in personal freedom, anyone who is not a socialist/communist goose-stepping mindless fool.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1105381077 Jim Gocht

Yer kuddin, me Hon,,,

Anonymous

Diana, that’s the thing – just what are the parameters that will be used? I think we know how these things can be stretched, and next thing you know, it’s your neighbor, or you. Like the “First they came…” poem. So poignant, and unfortunately, timely…

Obama claims he is the 4th best president. He sells himself short. I think he is Number One on the “All-Time WORST President” list.

Anonymous

the worsted evah!!!!!!

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MU6BQJXSLBGYDZX3NABQFVVKK4 blondman

Libertarians? How about conservatives? This is who really will be targeted by the left! Do you not remember that Eric Holder loses sleep at night over such domestic terrorists as Christians and US war veterans? Yet, the Obama administration will conveniently overlook club swinging New Black Panthers at voting centers, and allow our borders to be violated by the Mexican drug cartel killing innocent citizens as the ATF sells weapons that kill US agents? What do you mean libertarians will be persecuted? This administration is totally opposed to American heritage and freedom!

Anonymous

I remember the outrage that I felt when the Patriot Act was put into place. i thought then that the country should have risen up to stop it. Instead, everyone slowly got used to not having as many liberties as the Constitution had provided–because they had not been affected.

This is absolutely horrible. You wrote this: “A return to McCarthyism under the Obama Administration is what we now have.” But my biggest fear is that it is a negative image of McCarthyism. In my mind the Obama administration may, in fact, conduct witch hunts against libertarians and people who believe in personal freedom, anyone who is not a socialist/communist goose-stepping mindless fool.

Seattlegonz

Right on Amy. The only good thing about this…is it doesn’t include the provision that Obama has been acting on where American citizens are subject to assassination without trial.

Every time I hear a democrat going on about how wonderful all of Obama’s assassinations have been, I want to puke. No one, none of the media, ever ask the question about whether or not it’s good, right, moral or legal to put someone on a list and then view that list as a valid drone hit list.

When the Seals went into Usama’s compound they could’ve taken him out alive. But they didn’t because they were ordered not to. It’s not a far cry from the way Mubarak was treated…we’re supposed to capture enemies, if possible, interrogate, try and imprison according to military and international law.

Anonymous

Usama’s … it’s Osama. It was only changed when Obama ran for POTUS, that it was changed so as not to confuse the voting public and the ligustically challenged. (I shit you not)

Seattlegonz

I didn’t know that Teak. Osama it is…I can’t believe it.

Anonymous

Unbelievable.

Anonymous

Popsmoke is correct, but for the sound of the first letter in translation from Arabic to Latin based language.
That said, it is a fact that Osama was changed to “U” because of Obama…that is based on my personal observation in 2007.
So while personal observation can be disputed and I don’t take exception to being called on it, hat is what I saw happen. I suck at lying.

Propertius

The two transliterations have been used interchangeably for as long as bin Laden was written about in the West. For example, this article by Bernard Lewis in Foreign Affairs from 1998:

That is interesting, Propertius. But it does seem like the US MSM has been using “Usama” more now, like this year, than in the years since 9/11. I suppose it COULD be coincidence…

Anonymous

‘re right. It was a conscious effort on the part of the administration and the MSM.

On a different topic: someone needs to post the FULL Steve Kroft interview with Obama where in they removed Obama’s extravagant praise of the job he is doing as Prez. He ranks himself number 4 among all former Presidents and says his accomplishments are basically, overwhelming in their scope. Apparently, it was so outrageously over the top that they felt compelled to remove it.
It needs to be widely,
It needs to be on FOX and SNL needs to parody it. It is that ripe!

Anonymous

Sorry. It needs to be widely distributed.
My rage is showing.

Anonymous

mine too.

Anonymous

Sorry. It needs to be widely distributed.
My rage is showing.

Anonymous

You realize, of course, that that means someone has to LISTEN to him talk, right?

You are right, though – SNL and Jon Stewart should be parodying the hell out of that outrageous claim. If I can find the clip, I’ll gladly put it up!

Anonymous

Thanks. If my sense of outrage is any indication, it will go viral, and what a great campaign clip for Repubs.

Anonymous

LOL

Anonymous

‘re right. It was a conscious effort on the part of the administration and the MSM.

On a different topic: someone needs to post the FULL Steve Kroft interview with Obama where in they removed Obama’s extravagant praise of the job he is doing as Prez. He ranks himself number 4 among all former Presidents and says his accomplishments are basically, overwhelming in their scope. Apparently, it was so outrageously over the top that they felt compelled to remove it.
It needs to be widely,
It needs to be on FOX and SNL needs to parody it. It is that ripe!

Anonymous

His actual name is …..

Usāmah bin Muḥammad bin ʿAwaḍ bin Lādin

Anonymous

wow!!!!!!

Anonymous

I appreciatte the fine point Popsmoke you make.
But as I said, just type “OBL” in any search engine. Even when he first came up on the radar in the early 80′s the documents I read have his name spelled with an O.

Still the dipstick is a POPsicle in the Kush so what’s in a name?

Anonymous

Yeah that the problem Teak. The MSM and the USG has to denigrate the American public as stupid by Americanizing foreign names both personal and geo-political to make it simple for all of us morons (sic), who just can’t understand the magnitude of the events as they close on us….

In reality most of the MSM has problems pronouncing the names themselves..

Anonymous

Thanks, Seattle – and I guess that’s SOMETHING, right?

It really is staggering to me, especially the deafening SILENCE of people on the left. We screamed bloody murder when the Patriot Act was put into place, as Diana mentioned, and rightfully so. But what did Obama do? He voted to EXTEND it while campaigning, though both McCain and Clinton did not.

Know what my Obot brother said abt that move? It was “disappointing.” Well, no freakin’ kidding, but it was also an affront to our civil liberties, and still is. Obama has taken it a giant leap forward (or backwards, I suppose), and where the hell are they? Where’s the hue and cry? The outrage? The betrayal at what this so-called Scholar has done to our Constitution? To US?

Unbelievable.

Anonymous

So true Rev Amy. If this was being discussed up here in Canada there would be a shit-storm of unimaginable proportions.
And the partisan political finger pointing of even discussing it would go on for decades.

Anonymous

As there should be here, too, beyond. It is disturbing as hell that people aren’t going ballistic abt this.

Anonymous

He has also been claiming to have been against the Iraq war all along, but while in the Senate he voted to fund it every time it came up. He could have voted no on principle(if he had any), the bills would have passed anyway, but he voted for funding a war he was supposedly against. Doesn’t make much sense, does it?

Anonymous

YES, FLDemFem – thank you for that reminder. It makes me nuts when these interviewers blather on abt Obama being against the war, them re-shooting his big speech (that wasn’t that big of a deal at the time), and all of that, when he continued to vote to FUND it. That doesn’t sound like someone with a rock-hard stance to me, not even close. Yet he continues to get all of these props as if he actually acted on principles. Please.

Scottymac54

over the past week.
And I somehow doubt Glenn Greenwald will be guesting on “Human Events” any time soon…

I didn’t vote for Barky either.

Why do many of “you” simply choose not to listen when we DO speak out, simply because “we” haven’t chosen to jump on some “Red State” bandwagon?

I’m not trying to be antagonistic. I’m just trying to understand why party trumps country when civil rights and authoritarianism rears its ugly head.

Scottymac54

“It really is staggering to me, especially the deafening SILENCE of people on the left.”

I must have squawked about this half a dozen times over the past week.
And I somehow doubt Glenn Greenwald will be guesting on “Human Events” any time soon… I didn’t vote for Barky either. Why do many of “you” simply choose not to listen when we DO speak out, simply because “we” haven’t chosen to jump on some “Red State” bandwagon? I’m not trying to be antagonistic. I’m just trying to understand why party trumps country when civil rights and authoritarianism rears its ugly head.

Anonymous

Well said Seattlegonz – “No one, none of the media, ever ask the question about whether or not it’s good, right, moral or legal…” it really say all about where we are as a country that there is so little out rage being expressed.

Seattlegonz

Right on Amy. The only good thing about this…is it doesn’t include the provision that Obama has been acting on where American citizens are subject to assassination without trial.

Every time I hear a democrat going on about how wonderful all of Obama’s assassinations have been, I want to puke. No one, none of the media, ever ask the question about whether or not it’s good, right, moral or legal to put someone on a list and then view that list as a valid drone hit list.

When the Seals went into Usama’s compound they could’ve taken him out alive. But they didn’t because they were ordered not to. It’s not a far cry from the way Mubarak was treated…we’re supposed to capture enemies, if possible, interrogate, try and imprison according to military and international law.

Shop Amazon's New Kindle Fire
We defray costs with sales and donations. Do you shop at Amazon? Click any ad here, make any purchase, and we get a percentage. Thanks!

This website and the articles posted therein are contributed by authors who have no affiliation to the website or the website’s owner/moderator. All content provided on this blog is for informational purposes only and has been contributed by the owners for no monetary compensation. The owner/moderator makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by accessing any website link(s) provided in a post. As such, the owner/moderator will not be liable for any errors or omissions contained in the information set forth in an authored post nor for the availability of said information. The owner/moderator will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages arising from any information set forth in any author’s post(s) and will not indemnify the authors for any purpose arising from or related to the author’s post. By posting an article on this blog, the author, and the author alone, expressly assumes any liability related to the post. The owner/moderator does not share personal information with third-parties nor does the owner store information collected about your visit for use other than to analyze content performance. The owner/moderator is not responsible for the republishing of the content contained on this blog on other websites or media without permission. The owner/moderator of the blog reserves the right to edit or delete any comments submitted to this blog without notice due to (a) comments deemed to be spam or questionable spam; (b) comments including profanity; (c) comments containing language or concepts that could be deemed offensive; or (d) comments that attack a person or their character. The decision to remove any comments that violate the terms and conditions herein are made at the sole discretion of the owner/moderator. The policies, terms and conditions herein are subject to change at any time and without prior notice.